Talk:Changeling: The Lost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Role-playing games Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Proposed Goals For This Page

Here's a few that come to mind in no particular order. Feel free to add your own or object.

1) Properly reference everything relevant (scroll down to the bottom of the main page to check out the references section).
2) No cut-and-pasted text. Everything should be either original writing or brief quotes with citations.
3) No in-universe materal that isn't in a properly cited quote. This page isn't a reprint of the game manuals, the demo, or the promotional information.
5) Let's be concise and objective. Use the other nWoD games' articles as models.
6) Expand the development, promotion, critical reaction and release information as it becomes available.

Awakeandalive1 15:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me take a gander at Wikipedia:What is a good article?...
  • well written.
  • factually accurate and verifiable.
  • broad in its coverage.
  • neutral.
  • stable.
  • appropriate images.
at least the last one we've got down pat! I agree with your points, too, especially #2...if there IS cut n' paste here, thats Wikipedia:Copyright violations & is a cardinal no-no. I wish I could get my hands on the promo booklet...actually, I work at a bookstore that carries White Wolf stuff, & I've gotten them to send me promo stuff before...maybe I can get them to mail me one. It isn't fast but might be worth a try. --mordicai. 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Stability is something I doubt we'll achieve until the game is officially released. Even then there'll probably be plenty of people who still want to turn this into an unofficial transcription of the manual. I wonder if we'll also have to create pages for the supplementary manuals? Also, kudos for deleting all those rules! Awakeandalive1 16:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a page for each of the supplementary materials is needed, especially as this is going to be a limited series like Promethean: The Created. I mean, a stable article doesn't have to be unchanging, just not undergoing the vicissitudes that this one is now, right? I doubt that each sourcebook is going to warrent radical change; to point to the Promethean article again, the sourcebooks warrented, what, two new lineages & a handful of new refinements? There won't be that much encyclopedic content there, I'm wagering. You're right though; until it comes out this thing is going to be little more than a stub (a sprawling, monstrous stub, but....) --mordicai. 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Work!

Ok, this page needs a lot of work. The in-universe parts (which comprise most of the page, and most of which are just cut-and-pasted from the White Wolf website/promotional material) should AT LEAST have quotation marks around them. I'm as excited as the rest of you (if not more so), but I'd say we have plenty of information right now to construct a decent Wikipedia article that doesn't read like an attempted reproduction of the game manual. The problem is, this page is such a mess that I'm having a hard time deciding where to start... Any ideas or suggestions? Awakeandalive1 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really with you...it is hard to just dive in, because so much of it is just deserving of deletion. I've been using the Promethean: The Created article as a jumping off point, since it is (I think) pretty decent in combining the info a gamer might want with the info a browser might want, without violating encyclopedic content. There is still plenty of pruning to be done...the difficulty lies in knowing what IS important to the game. The answer to that is that if we arn't sure if it is notable, well then, it is probably speculation, & should be removed. It is tough though, as a lot of it is sourced...a pretty pickle. Best to just be bold, I guess. --mordicai. 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess my problem IS that so much of it sourced. We don't want this page to become an on-line version of the game manual, and we definitely don't want it to turn into a huge advertisement for the game. Yet the majority of the text comes from White Wolf's promotional materials or is just copied word-for-word from their website, and that means we either need parphrasings or quotations. I agree about the Promethean article; it's a great model for this one. I'll do some work here today and see how the main contributor's react. Awakeandalive1 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
While sourcing is a good, good yardstick, sourcing non-encyclopedic content doesn't mean it should stay. I think most editors would agree that heavy work needs to be done here, so go ahead & dive in; I've been doing so. Don't be too frightened of stepping on toes...no one owns an article! --mordicai. 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean that the sourcing prevented me from deleting it; I meant that most of it being "sourced" (ie: directly copied) meant that there might be copyright and trademark issues. As in: "do we have the right to reprint, without permission or citation, this material?" I'd like to know what the legal position is, so that I know what MUST be deleted if anything. But I will dive right in, as you said. Awakeandalive1 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Man, I don't have the pamphlet, but if there is copyvio, just delete it all with extreme prejudice. --mordicai. 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the Seeming and Kith info still seems to be cut-and-pasted from the book. I acknowledge that we need to provide blurbs on those subjects, but can't we reword them? Jorgath 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reformatting

So I've begun carving away at the page and I hope that the rest of you will help me out with it. I am trying to brutal, but am also aiming for precision. Can anyone give me any input on where they think the page needs the most work? Awakeandalive1 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just spent the better part of the day (well, off and on, during work) trying to edit and re-write the "Overview" and "Setting" areas, but accidentally closed the window while trying to end another application. I just don't have it in me to try again, so could someone take a stab at that? I know we can simplify it and get rid of the in-universe tag if we really work at it. Awakeandalive1 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, wow that is annoying. I took a bit to cut the article up pretty heavily, as so much of it consisted of game rules. --mordicai. 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal for assistance

I just put in a request for further editors to pitch in over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games, so hopefully we'll gain some help from that quarter. --mordicai. 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for the Name

Due to a dispute on the White Wolf, Inc. Discussion Board, this source has been relocated to the appropriate game. I personally believe the link is not necessary anymore since it follows in the realm of common knowledge, but because it is still a new series it may still be appropriate for it to be available as an external link. Cadwal 05:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm...not sure what you mean. "Relocated to the appropriate game?" If you mean the source for the name "Changeling: The Lost" then i'd say it will be relevant until the game is finally released later this month. Then it should either go at the bottom of the article in a "publication/development history" section, or be removed entirely. Awakeandalive1 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ChangelingTheLostCover.jpg

Image:ChangelingTheLostCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've resolved this. I've added a fair use claim and deleted the template calling for the image's deletion. No further action should be necessary. That said, anyone who cares about this article would be well recommended to "watch" all images associated with the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 05:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "unimaginable" citation needed

I love how the word "unimaginable" has a "citation needed." You see stuff like that all the time. could some one change it to "tasks that some might percieve as difficult" or "tasks that I can imagine, but, hey, you might be different." I don't even have the book, i'm just sayin

mycomputersaidkill 9:07, 17 December 2007

Yes, you do see it all the time. This is how you ask for support for claims you find suspicious. The other valid option is to simply delete the suspicious claim; it cannot be re-added without a citation. The citation request is just a warning that the claim could be deleted. In this specific case, I suspect "unimaginable" is hyperbole, and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should limit ourselves to bare factual statements. I also suspect that the Changeling book gives concrete examples so players can better understand what their characters went through. If so, "unimaginable" would be clearly false as the authors had imagined some examples. If the book describes the tasks as "unimaginable," then doesn't describe them at all, just add a citation to the page where the book says that and we're set! If the book does describe them, we need to better describe the tasks so readers better understand the setting. Are the tasks hard to imagine because they're weird? Are they hard to imagine because they are exceptionally cruel? — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Infringement

This page was tagged due to copyright infringement. Most of the source material provided in this article allows readers to participate in the roleplaying game, Changeling the Lost, without purchasing the book due to the level of detail provided. Exact passages from the book are taken in part or in full. As such I have placed this article for speedy deletion to prevent further violations. For reference see ((Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use_of_text)) and ((Speedy_deletion#General_criteria)).

Although some of the material is clearly sourced, that which isn't is ripped straight from the core rulebook. In addition to plagiarism, when performing a simple search for Changeling the Lost, there are no credible sources available beyond the manufacture, various blog posts from people who play the game, and a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff after the first page or so. 72.145.1.190 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you identify which passages are copied directly from the book without being reworded? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Many of the details were cut; regardless whether they violate copyright, there's no need for them in an article that is only meant to describe the game. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
While there was a lot of content of questionable value, I think you've cut to aggresively. Listing every Seeming, Kith, and the like was probably overkill, but failing to define them at all has gone too far. I'll try to add a brief description and an example or two for each, but it would be easier for someone more familiar with Changeling than I. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
72.145.1.190: You are simply wrong. You are so wrong, it would be easy to conclude that you are trolling. However, just in case you are well meaning but ignorant: For copyright violations you need to indicate which sections are in violation. Furthermore, the correct procedure is to delete the copyright violations, not to flag the entire article for deletion. For important coverage, like a major release from a major role-playing publisher, outright deletion of the article is simply not going to happen. I have no idea how you thought someone could play the game with just the information in this article, seeing as it never listed game mechanics, specific powers, or any of the rest of the hundreds of pages of content in the core book. — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Finding the right level of detail will take some work; the cutting did probably remove some parts that could stay in abbreviated form, so adding back some summaries of the removed information would be reasonable. There were some aspects of game mechanics, such as the resources required to perform certain actions, that were almost certainly too detailed. It's good to have someone more familiar with the game helping with it, in any case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In these edits, 209.183.34.49 re-added a bunch of cruft CBM deleted without any explanation. I think CBM did the right thing, and re-adding that content will require at least some rationale. I've reverted the re-addition. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)